hello.
thanks for the emails regarding my question about reusing parts of the
tel syntax. i am not quite sure what all of that means, since it seems
that there are issues with the current syntax. 3966 needs to be fixed
and there is nothing i could/should reference right now?
the basic idea was that quite a bit of effort went into the tel URI
scheme, and that the sms URI scheme should reuse the tel scheme's model
and syntax of what a telephone number is. this way, implementations for
parsing telephone numbers could be reused.
but: now that you have pointed out the errata, i have looked at these
and they turn out to be very relevant for me, because erratum 203 says that
isdn-subaddress = ";isub=" 1*uric
should be replaced with
isdn-subaddress = ";isub=" 1*paramchar
looking at the corrected syntax, it seems to me that a literal "," is
not allowed to be part of an isdn-subaddress anymore, which would solve
my basic problem of whether the sms URI scheme can use a literal "," for
separating telephone numbers.
so here is my rephrased question: since "," is not allowed as a part of
a telephone number in the telephone-subscriber part of a tel URI, can i
use the telephone-subscriber syntax to replace the sms-number production
in the proposed sms URI scheme? i just want to make sure that the syntax
will be correct.
tel: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3966
sms: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-sms-uri-15
thanks a lot and kind regards,
erik wilde tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814
dret@berkeley.edu - http://dret.net/netdret
UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool)